SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440211

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MOHANA J S – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 14076/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14076 OF 2025

[(439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)]

BETWEEN:

MOHANA J.S,

S/O SHIVANANDA,

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

R/O. JOBIGENAHALLI VILLAGE,

GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 119.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SANDEEPA S.H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY GANDASI POLICE,

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

Digitally signed by

BENGALURU- 560 001.

LAKSHMINARAYANA

MURTHY RAJA SHRI

Location: HIGH

COURT OF 2. SOMASHEKAR

KARNATAKA

S/O LATE KALAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

(VICTIM GIRL FATHER)

R/O. JOBIGENAHALLI VILLAGE

GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 119.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B. PUSHPALATHA, ADDITIONAL SPP FOR R1;

R2 - SERVED)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.109/2025 OF GANDASI POLICE AT HASSAN PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I AT HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 137(2) OF BNS AND SECTIONS

9 AND 12 OF POCSO ACT 2012 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by sole accused under Section

483 of Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to grant bail in Crime No.109/2025 of Gandasi Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 137(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that, the victim girl was having love affair with the petitioner and they went for a trip to Chikkamagaluru. After returning from Chikkamagaluru, the parents of the victim girl did not permit her to reside in their house and they sent her out and thereafter, she resided in the house of the petitioner for one month. The victim is aged more than fifteen (15) years and she is aware of the consequences of her acts. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With these, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State would contend that, the victim girl in her statement has specifically stated the acts of this petitioner harassing her and committing sexual intercourse on her. The medical report indicates that, the victim girl became pregnant and the doctor as opined that, sexual intercourse has taken place. The charge sheet materials show that, there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner for offence alleged against him.

With these, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for parties, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

6. The statement of the victim girl recorded by the Police indicates that, she was in love affair with the petitioner and she voluntarily went along with him for a trip to Chikkamagaluru. Even the supervisor of Women and Child Development Department in her complaint has stated that, the victim girl has disclosed before her that, she was having love affair with the petitioner. The victim girl is aged more than fifteen (15) years and she is of the age of understanding the consequences of her acts. Even though, the petitioner is ready for his marriage with the victim girl, the victim girl and her mother did not agree for the same. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. As the charge is filed, the petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation.

7. Considering all the above aspec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top